Attached is an update by Wally Moran concerning the anchoring debate that is currently taking place in Florida. All cruisers need to be informed and take appropriate actions to keep the anchorages open to all.

The following is a letter that Jay Campbell wrote to FWC to response to the anchor debate that is taking place in a Florida. Excellent points.

Thanks to Wally Moran and Sail Magazine, and Mike Ahart at WaterwayGuide, for engaging in this fight. Also thanks to Wally for quoting me in his excellent article. Here is the full text of my response to Florida's FWC. Feel free to use. - Jay

I am a Florida Licensed Attorney, with over 25 years of practice in the State. I have owned many residential properties, including waterfront property in Tampa, as recently as 2013 when my wife and I moved full time on to our boat in Palmetto. We reside at a Marina, but often cruise Southwest Florida and Southeast Florida, anchoring as is prudent, dictated by weather, tide, travel schedules and the need to rest.

I have read and completely oppose the proposed FWC restrictions on anchoring in "concept 2" related to establishing setbacks from residential property. These proposals seem designed to benefit only a few wealthy landowners at the expense of the public's right to use and enjoy these waters, as established by the federal public trust. The proposals do NOT set forth any concerns or problems the proposals are designed to address, nor do they note any review done by the FWC to ensure the setbacks are a reasonable response to any such problems. Therefore, the proposed setbacks are not reasonable encroachment of the public rights, and are illegal.

Regarding the set back proposals, I note the following in support of all boaters, and voters, who also oppose these proposed restrictions:

1. Where are the studies FWC has done or reviewed to support the proposed 150' or 300' anchoring set backs?

2. Where are the concerns, set out in writing, that FWC is attempting to address with these setbacks?

3. Where are the legal opinions that these proposed setbacks are lawful, and not an illegal encroachment on the federal regulation of waterways as a public trust?

4. If the concern is derelict boats, or stored boats, why doesn't the proposal state so, and tailor a proposal to this more narrow concern, rather than prohibit EVERY boat from anchoring?

5. If the concern is the potential discharge of sewage, why doesn't the proposal state so, and tailor a proposal to this more narrow concern, rather than prohibit EVERY boat from anchoring?

6. If the concern is a reasonable amount of unencumbered room for landowners to use near their docks and access channels, why doesn't the proposal state so, and tailor a proposal to this more narrow concern (for example, using a common standard of 1 1/2 times boat length from the protected structure) rather than prohibit EVERY boat from anchoring?

7. Regarding the proposal to return regulation, in part, back to small local governments, why does this proposal suggest that FWC should administer a program which will allow every municipality to apply for and create it's own anchoring rules, thereby turning Florida into a patchwork quilt of regulations without a sound basis, or statewide enforcement?

The proposals seem to be unlawful, poorly thought out, against the interest of Florida citizens who are boaters, against the interests of Florida businesses which cater to boaters, and in support of ONLY a few wealthy landowners, represented by legislators who control the FWC funding. This is not how laws and regulations should be developed and implemented to support the public interest. - Jay Campbell, JD

In this case, it seems to me that the boaters are in the right (public access to the water).

I hope anchoring rights are maintained in Florida.

As pointed out by the attorney quoted above, it seems the proposed restrictions are too broad and not focused on more narrow problems (e.g. derelict boats).

__________________Ahoy All Sailors! Need experienced crew for a passage or delivery in Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, Med, PNW, ICW, coastal or across an ocean anytime in 2017? I am available on 24hr notice. See my CF Profile "About Me" page for details. Happy to lend a hand!

Discussions about politics, weaponry and religion are permitted only in association with the topic of this forum and will be closed or removed if they become disruptive.

Although this issue in Florida is political, and it is perfectly fine to post on that issue, it is not fine to post on other general political issues. Those posts have been removed and we ask no new ones be posted.

Keep to the subject only please.

__________________If your attitude resembles the south end of a bull heading north, it's time to turn around.

Not sure what the removed posts were but I think this is something that boaters along the gulf need to watch. While homeowners may like their view of the water- boat belong on the water and therefore the view of the water may include boats. I understand the desire to not see derilict boats that can be addressed in a manner other than limiting achorage to inhabited boats- at least that's how it seems to me.

SNIP
6. If the concern is a reasonable amount of unencumbered room for landowners to use near their docks and access channels, why doesn't the proposal state so, and tailor a proposal to this more narrow concern (for example, using a common standard of 1 1/2 times boat length from the protected structure) rather than prohibit EVERY boat from anchoring?

SNIP

Jay Campbell

I am still looking for a cite for the 1 1/2 boat length. Jay Campbell who claims to be a lawyer did post an answer to that question in a facebook thread on this same topic. But I doubt any judge would accept it as a legit cite.

I also doubt any boat owner would agree that anchoring 1 1/2 boat lengths from a boat on a dock is a reasonable idea. Say I have a 10 foot dinghy and anchor 15 feet from a 50 foot steel hullketch. Anyone really think that is a good idea.

Another consideration is the definition of navigable waters. The EPA has recently taken the position in court that govt authority extends to what opponents would consider mud puddles. Not saying I agree with that, just that much of what I use to consider places to anchor is now consider a place that should freely allow navigation.

But the bottom line is that as someone who has lived and boated in Florida since 1954 there has been a huge increase in the number of boats in Florida waters and what we are seeing is an effort to reduce the number of boats. Econ 101, the law of supply and demand; there is too large a supply of boats in Florida waters and a lack of demand for them.

there is too large a supply of boats in Florida waters and a lack of demand for them.

If derelict boats are the issue then laws on the books in the area need to be enforced before enacting new laws that extend the reach of government further into the boating community. In an economy such as the current one- would it be best to run off boaters or to accomodate them and allow them to spend $$ that is much needed in the local economy? I suppose those that want an unhindered view don't need the $$ influx but perhaps the owners of business that boaters used would like them to stick around. Again this would NOT be derelict unwanted boats that are not doing any good for anyone. Why must we continually look for legislation when if you look there is already legislation to address the problem?

As a liveaboard boater I have in the past month seen three sailboats brought (towed) from probably some canal front property and dumped in the anchorage here. No numbers on one that sank yesterday. Sad cause it looked like a nice little boat. A second boat no mast now in the mangroves. A third boat- no mast towed in yesterday and dumped in the anchorage. Bad weather and no gas kept me from getting tow boat numbers but this is now three derelicts that have never had a "liveaboard" on them. To deal with and address the problem of derelicts it might pay to know what the problem actually is.

soverel- so tugs are bringing derelicts to the moorings and anchoring them? Sounds like an issue. Perhaps you can obtain numbers and do some research and let us know what's up? Someone must be paying them to tow them- I can't imagine them doing it for free- and why would they? The money trail will show what's up if it can be followed.

So private boats are towing derelict boats to the anchorages and dumbing them? Seems the running boat owners might be getting rid of they're old boats after they upgrade? You didn't see numbers on the boats doing the towing? Seems the authorities should be able to get the last owner by the hull ids and that the last known owner - if they can find them- should be responsible for doing something with them. If the owners aren't moving them then it seems money must be involved in the moving of them. Perhaps it's a homeowner on the canal that has decided they are tired of looking at them and uses their own or hires someone to tow the eyesore to the anchorage?

Again this would NOT be derelict unwanted boats that are not doing any good for anyone. Why must we continually look for legislation when if you look there is already legislation to address the problem?

You seem to be missing my point. Would anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size anchor a boat 1 1/2 boat lengths from another boat, unless it was a very crowded situation.

That is the problem there are too many boats. Sure some of them may be old, junky, whatever but there are a lot more boats that are simply boats peeps are using. Kinda like the Yogi quotation, 'that place is so crowded no one goes there anymore'.

................ If the owners aren't moving them then it seems money must be involved in the moving of them. Perhaps it's a homeowner on the canal that has decided they are tired of looking at them and uses their own or hires someone to tow the eyesore to the anchorage?